As you should understand by now, by checking how long it takes for me to enter and exit a trade (from the valuable info I posted which - properly analyzed - would greatly boost your skills also), I cannot offer such a service which wakes up all small traders at the instant I make a move  

Besides I don't understand this consultant thing, I haven't sold such services for years really, nor intend to. All the contribution here is free and buyer beware, as with everybody else's. I honestly believe that people should pay more attention to the opinions of successful people, and have taken some provocations as opportunities to show proof of the success. This is a second time (only) that I have posted a complete record of trades in the ballpark of BTC1k, and will remain so. Keep your apology if you want, and believe it will earn you better karma. I will not put you on ignore, because I like your posts, but I will kindly ask you to ignore me as you seemingly cannot take my facts as they are and develop a conversation based on them.

If anyone wonders why my post quality is so low in this thread, it is not because of my lack of willingness to contribute, it is because mainly the fools reply to my posts and the smart people do not pick the ball.

That show got boring after season 6 :p

26.6 GH/s https://vircurex.com/

Never seen it mentioned here, so just throwing this out, but what happens when the *kids* discover crypto? That's my take on doge - it might not be the one that does it, but if there aren't thousands of proto geeks mining doge at the moment I'd be amazed. All the things we love about bitcoin apply in the playground - it's going to be the next wave of adoption.

Nice, congrats!


ok..

Nice work @mmitech! Did something similar but with trading around 40btc... and when the crash was over I traded btc for ltc at ratio 0.02689, now is 0.03148 but I'm waiting for around 0.04 so I will get some extra btc without going to fiat  Pozdrav s Celja   

Everyone knows my long term and mid term predictions, so it's time to reveal a short-term one: the market looks like it could crash imminently any time now.

i think the (selling) volume will go up after 700 is down, 380 coins left

edit, okay now 429

ofc one big reason in background is that this is probably bounce from the last big down move 1163 - 382, it's not likely that we could recover this fast, despite we're talking about bitcoin

idk how low, but i have presented some numbers to back up further down move

- bid/ask ratio is down
- bid/ask ratio peaked at $764 stamp and trend is down
- a lot was sold yesterday, yet little was bought when we got back up
- important support ($700 stamp) was sold through
- price trend is down, lower high was $725 stamp
- there's no volume

calm before storm?

You need to catch up to the current episode!  ;-)

Wow.. not putting mirsad on the ignore list, really?

That was me two years ago. People who makes waves, right or wrong get that sort of reaction. I like reading rpietila's posts as they are well thought out and are logical, even if I do not agree with them 100% of the time.

Would be a crazy "free market" if we all thought the same thing all the time.

this is a little off-topic, but physics is my thing, and i'd love to try to give a layman's interpretation of such a technical thought experiment

the idea is that the classic notion of determinism, that one can use trajectory and velocity and momentum to determine the future state of a given system (similarly to how one judges and executes shots on a pool table), breaks down completely on small enough scales.

in pool each of the balls has a definite location. you can strike one, giving it a definite velocity in a definite direction and with practice pretty handily work backwards through the physics that governs the behavior of the balls and, remarkably consistently, make difficult shots.

if the pool table were the size of an atom, however, and the balls were subatomic particles, the game would be significantly harder. the early pioneers of quantum mechanics (quantum meaning "unit", like the indivisible subatomic particles) realized quickly that the smaller something is, the more strangely it behaved when they tried to "find" it -- that is, determine its location.

it turns out that nothing has a definite location, which is hard to wrap one's head around, but for small things at small scales it's very obvious and a whole new physics needed to be developed. when measuring an electron, for instance, its location seemed to correspond with the amplitude of a wave, with different probabilities of finding the particle in a certain location corresponding to the amplitude of the wave at different points. this, incidentally, is the basis of Schrodinger's Equation, which formalized de Broglie's work.

in the image i linked, the sharp and pointy distribution corresponds to a very massive thing, like a billiard-ball, whose location is much more definite than a very light thing, like an electron (lighter by about 30 orders of magnitude!), about which it isn't an exaggeration to say that it could be anywhere in the universe.

this brings us to the star of Schrodinger's thought experiment, a heavy atom undergoing radioactive decay. one of the insights that quantum mechanics gave us is an explanation of this strange phenomenon. some atoms, for reasons previously unknown, randomly and violently ejected bits of the nucleus from time to time. the strangest thing about this is that is is impossible to know exactly when this event would occur for a single atom, but groups of the same isotope always obey a half-life rule, such that after one half-life (a constant) for a given isotope has passed, exactly half of a given sample of isotope will have decayed.

sounds like quantum weirdness, doesn't it? that's because it is!

what's actually happening is that the particles in the nucleus suddenly find themselves outside of it and are ejected away by the electrostatic force that causes protons to repel each other. weird.

but this leaves us in a quagmire of conceptualization. is it really true that the deterministic world we perceive is really made up of unfathomable masses of fuzzy, random, indistinct processes?

Schrodinger tried to bridge the gap to demonstrate just how weird the implications of this are. if we arrange things so that the radioactive decay of an atom, for which it is literally impossible to know whether or not it has decayed after a certain time t, is tied to a mechanism that will kill a cat (why a cat? ask Schrodinger), then we end up in a situation in which the entire state of the box becomes quantumly uncertain. generally, we model this uncertainty on the subatomic scale as a superposition of every possibility, i.e. a probability curve, but it seems extremely counterintuitive to try to conceptualize the contents of the box as a superposition of live cat and dead cat (and if time t is the isotope's half-life, the chances are exactly 50-50!).

anyway, i hope you appreciated the explanation i tried to give a complete picture of the conceptual underpinnings without going into too much detail. lots of good vocabulary to wiki for future inquiries, too!

--arepo